Re: From Daumier to Smith
Camille Scaysbrook (verona_beach@hotpop.com)
Thu, 16 Sep 1999 11:15:14 +1000
citycabn quoted:
> The notion behind the story was too complicated, Lobrano [JDS's editor]
> believed; its events were 'too compressed.' Finally, the piece seemed
> almost willfully strange, which Lobrano knew wasn't true, but that was
how
> it *seemed.* Salinger was affected by this rejection more than
> most....because he had reached the point where The New Yorker accepted
> almost any story he submitted to them. On November 15, Salinger wrote to
> Lobrano to tell him he was profoundly disheartened by the rejection. It
was
> a short letter.
>
> --pp. 158-9.
I'm so glad to hear all of these old mysteries cleared up. It's a little
like finding a missing Glass story clearing up something as minor as `why
was DDS the only story from Nine Stories not published in America' -
something that nobody quite knew until now. The Alexander book may be worth
any other downfall just for its facts, which I suspected (and despite all,
for which I have always found the Ian Hamilton book very handy.) And I
think that's hit on the reason I like DDS so much. It *is* wilfully strange
or puts over the impression of such, and I love Salinger being Strange (: I
don't know that it would have sat comfortably in the New Yorker - possibly
what Lobrano was hinting is that it would be better extended into a full
novel, which is an idea that tantalises me very much - but then again, did
Hapworth 16 ??? Could you imagine any single writer today being allowed
free rein in a magazine of that significance to fill the pages with
whatever he liked? The only person I could imagine them letting do that,
the only person for whom the coup would be big enough to make the whole
exercise worthwhile is .... well, Salinger(: Perhaps the New Yorker were
aware that it would be seen as a coup in the years to come.
I'm also very interested in Pasha's theory that DDS represented Salinger's
own desire for recognition (maybe another reason why I empathise (: ) -
which would make the knockback from the New Yorker all the more ironic for
him. This is especially fascinating:
(Pasha wrote):
>>Perhaps the nature of the epiphany is that good
artists -- like the flower girl and Sister Irma -- must go unrecognized,
unpraised, even unseen, if they are to remain good artists. <<
- because it forms the basis of Salinger's attitude to his art for at least
the past thirty years. Great theories, Pasha! Keep on with this, I never
quite got the foot thing anyway (:
Camille
verona_beach@hotpop.com